BEWARE: LEGAL PRIVILEGE RULES DIFFER BETWEEN THE U.S. AND THE EU

Transcription

1 CLIENT MEMORANDUM BEWARE: LEGAL RULES DIFFER BETWEEN THE U.S. AND THE EU I. Introduction Jurisdictions in the United States and Europe differ significantly in their approach to the privilege afforded to lawyers to protect against the disclosure of confidential information related to the attorney-client relationship. In an era of increasing globalization, antitrust proceedings and regulatory investigations frequently are multi-jurisdictional, involving parallel actions by authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. The adequate protection of clients interests in such an environment requires a sound understanding of the distinctions between privilege rules in the U.S. and the EU. Legal privilege in the United States, which encompasses at least the attorney-client privilege and the work-product protection, is more expansive than in Europe, but is subject to change over time and varies by geographic region and by context. Privileged material in the U.S. is also subject to waiver, with certain exceptions, if it is shared with those outside the attorney-client relationship. This memorandum will note some important differences between privilege law in the United States and Europe, focusing on the practical implications for attorneys involved in cross-border communications and the exchange of confidential information with legal counsel or clients overseas. In Europe, the attorney-client privilege is called the legal professional privilege ( LPP ), and protects the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. The doctrine was first formulated in the AM & S judgment in and its scope was recently refined in Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission ( Akzo ). 2 The September 2007 judgment of the Court of First Instance ( CFI ) in Akzo is currently under appeal to the European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) Case C-155/79, AM & S Europe Limited v Commission of the European Communities, May 18, Joined cases T-125/03 & T-253/03, Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission of the European Communities, September 17, Case C-550/07 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2007 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities. No judgment by the ECJ is expected to be issued before NEW YORK WASHINGTON PARIS LONDON MILAN ROME FRANKFURT BRUSSELS

2 II. U.S./EU: Distinctions Regarding Scope of Privilege In the United States, courts recognize both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The attorney-client privilege covers oral and written communications made in confidence between or among privileged persons, including inside and outside counsel and their clients, for the purpose of seeking, obtaining, or providing legal assistance. The attorney work-product doctrine is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, and applies to documents and tangible things that were prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. 4 The work-product protection is qualified in that an adversary may obtain discovery upon a showing of a substantial need for the material and a hardship in obtaining the material by other, less intrusive means. An attorney s mental impressions are typically accorded the most protection under the work-product doctrine. In Europe, the LPP applies only to written communications between lawyers and clients for the purpose of exercising the client s rights of defense. One major difference between the European LPP and privilege rules in the U.S. is that the LPP applies to written legal advice provided only by outside counsel and to documents prepared only for the purpose of seeking such advice. Attorneys covered by the European privilege must be independent in the sense that they are not bound to their clients by a relationship of employment. 5 The CFI in Akzo expressly refused to extend the LPP to communications between a client and its in-house lawyers. The European privilege does extend to internal written communications (socalled preparatory documents) written by in-house lawyers as long as they are prepared exclusively for the purpose of seeking legal advice from an outside lawyer in the exercise of the right of defense. Internal notes circulated within an undertaking, when confined to reporting the text or the content of legal advice received from an independent lawyer, are also covered by the privilege. 6 However, the fact that a document has been discussed with a lawyer is alone not sufficient to trigger the application of the European LPP. In addition, and importantly, the European privilege extends only to counsel who are admitted to a bar in one of the Member States of the European Union. Admission to a bar in the United States is not sufficient to support the application of the LPP in Europe. Finally, the interplay between the European privilege rules and, to the extent they exist, the national rules on privilege must be considered. If a Member State does not have national legal privilege rules, the national competition authority when conducting a dawn raid for the European Commission might seek, upon application of its national procedural rules, to review all documents. However, the European Commission cannot use as evidence documents that are privileged under EC rules. The law of privilege in Europe is still evolving, and national Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). This interpretation of independence is challenged in Akzo s appeal to the ECJ. Case T-30/89, Hilti v Commission of the European Communities [1990] ECR

3 authorities in some EU Member States are considering whether to incorporate the EC case law on privilege into their national regulations. III. Practical Considerations Given the important distinctions between privilege law in the U.S. and Europe, caution should be exercised by U.S. counsel in transmitting documents and sharing information with counsel and client personnel overseas. For example, while confidential advice on U.S. law given by U.S. outside counsel to a European company in connection with a U.S. proceeding generally should be privileged in a U.S. proceeding, it may not be protected from disclosure in an EU Member State in connection with a European proceeding. 7 In the context of a dawn raid or EC investigation, requests from the Commission may be broad enough to include documents that would be subject to the attorney-client privilege or the workproduct doctrine in the U.S. Depending on the jurisdiction, providing confidential materials to the Commission voluntarily without a formal objection and order of disclosure might constitute a waiver of the privilege in the U.S. 8 Counsel in the U.S. should also be aware that confidential communications with their client and company personnel in Europe will not be privileged under European rules, unless such communications are prepared for the purpose of seeking or reporting legal advice from outside counsel admitted to a bar in Europe. U.S. counsel thus may wish to consider retaining an independent lawyer in Europe who is admitted to the bar in an EU Member State to serve as outside counsel and to ensure that confidential attorney-client communications are protected by the European LPP. The following measures may assist in-house counsel in preserving the LPP in Europe with respect to documents that are prepared for the purpose of seeking legal advice in connection with a cross-border investigation or proceeding: State on the face of the document that it has been prepared to seek or provide legal advice at the request of the client; Label the document as privileged and maintain it in a file separate from business documents, preferably in the legal department; 7 8 See Julian Joshua, It s A Privilege: Managing Legal Privilege in Multijurisdictional Antitrust Investigations, Comp. L. Insight (Dec. 11, 2007). Compare Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 611 (8th Cir. 1978) (limited waiver of privileged materials provided to SEC pursuant to subpoena did not constitute universal waiver) with Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, (D.C. Cir. 1981) (rejecting notion of limited waiver )

4 If documents are prepared at the request of outside counsel, ensure that they are forwarded to outside counsel and maintained in a file separate from business documents, preferably in the legal department; In-house personnel should not add internal comments or recommendations to documents containing external legal advice; and Restrict the internal circulation of such documents to those who need to consider and/or act on the legal advice. 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For further information regarding this memorandum, please contact William H. Rooney ( , Jacques-Philippe Gunther ( , or the attorney with whom you regularly work. This memorandum was authored by Jacques-Philippe Gunther, William H. Rooney, Christina Hummer and Rebecca N. Zimmer. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is headquartered at 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY Our telephone number is (212) and our facsimile number is (212) Our website is located at June 19, 2008 Copyright 2008 by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. All Rights Reserved. This memorandum may not be reproduced or disseminated in any form without the express permission of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. This memorandum is provided for news and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an invitation to an attorney-client relationship. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP does not guarantee such accuracy and cannot be held liable for any errors in or any reliance upon this information. Under New York s Code of Professional Responsibility, this material may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 9 See Michael Frisby, Between Ourselves: Post Akzo, 157 New L.J (Oct. 26, 2007)

5 COMPARISON OF LEGAL RULES IN THE U.S. AND EU U.S. EU TYPE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE LEGAL PROFESSIONAL WHO? Communications between or among clients and their attorneys (in-house or outside counsel), communicating agents, and agents of the attorney for the purpose of the representation In-house or outside counsel or a party s representative (if assisting counsel in preparing for litigation) Outside counsel admitted to a bar in one of the EU Member States WHAT? Oral or written communications made in confidence Documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation, especially those reflecting an attorney s thought processes Written communications concerning the right of defense, including documents prepared exclusively for the purpose of seeking legal advice WHEN? When legal advice is sought or received When prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial When legal advice is sought or received from outside counsel WHERE? U.S. jurisdictions (although interpretations of privilege law vary by jurisdiction) U.S. jurisdictions (although interpretations of privilege law vary by jurisdiction) EU jurisdiction (national laws apply in investigations conducted by a national competition authority) HOW? By a determination by a court (when in dispute) whether the communication meets the requirements of the attorney-client privilege and has not been waived By a determination by a court (when in dispute) whether the document is subject to work-product protection, and whether the adversary shows substantial need for the material and hardship in obtaining it by less intrusive means By a determination by the European Court of First Instance (when in dispute) whether the document is subject to the legal professional privilege (During dawn raids, a special procedure applies in case of a dispute as to the applicability of the LPP.) WHY? To encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients To protect the thought processes, opinions, mental impressions, and beliefs of an attorney and his or her agents preparing for litigation To protect the client s right of defense - 5 -

CLIENT MEMORANDUM THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPOSES AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LEGITIMIZING INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS OF PERSONAL DATA FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION The ICC Report analyzes the use of binding

CLIENT MEMORANDUM IN RE MILLER: RECENT CASE HIGHLIGHTS THE DIFFICULTY OF PERFECTING SECURITY INTERESTS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE UCC Perfecting a security interest against an individual

CLIENT MEMORANDUM FLORIDA BANKRUPTCY COURT CALLS INTO QUESTION ENFORCEABILITY OF SAVINGS CLAUSES IN UPSTREAM GUARANTY AGREEMENTS On October 13, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern

CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS In a decision that will likely reduce the number of false marking cases, the Federal Circuit

CLIENT MEMORANDUM SEC ADOPTS FINAL RULES ON DISCLOSURE REGARDING PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF INVESTMENT COMPANIES The Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC ), as part of its ongoing effort to improve the

CLIENT MEMORANDUM RED FLAG IDENTITY THEFT RULES MAY HAVE YOU SEEING RED: FTC EXTENDS COMPLIANCE DEADLINE BECAUSE MANY COMPANIES DID NOT KNOW THAT THESE RULES APPLY TO THEM When companies outside the financial

CLIENT MEMORANDUM RECENT CHANGES TO THE NEW YORK POWER OF ATTORNEY LAW Powers of attorney are commonly used in the asset management business, including in private funds and other investment arrangements,

CLIENT MEMORANDUM SEC ADOPTS NEW RULE DESIGNED TO DETER PAY-TO-PLAY ACTIVITIES BY INVESTMENT ADVISERS In light of recent publicized occurrences in states such as New York, California, New Mexico and Connecticut

CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL RESERVE AND FDIC PROPOSE NEW RULES REGARDING PREPARATION OF LIVING WILLS On March 29, 2011, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve ) and the

The European Court of Justice Denies Professional Legal Privilege to Employed Lawyers Maurits Dolmans, Dirk Vandermeersch, and Jay Modrall The authors of this article discuss a much-awaited ruling by the

CLIENT MEMORANDUM CFTC AND SEC DEFINE MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANT AND MAJOR SECURITY-BASED SWAP PARTICIPANT The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission have issued joint

Tax Court Addresses Implied Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege The Tax Court Holds That Raising Good-Faith and State-of-Mind Defenses to Accuracy-Related Penalties Could Result in an Implied Waiver

Client Alert Federal Controversy & Policy Corporate & Business Transactions International No Extension of English Law Privilege to Accountants, Non-Lawyer Advisers by Anne Fairpo and Raymond L. Sweigart

CLIENT MEMORANDUM CFTC AND SEC ADOPT DEFINITION OF SWAP AND SECURITY-BASED SWAP The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission have issued joint final rules and interpretations

Published on Arkansas Judiciary (https://courts.arkansas.gov) Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:

CASE EVALUATION AND PREPARATION DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE Solo and Small Firm Conference James R. Hobbs Wyrsch Hobbs & Mirakian, PC In assessing a criminal case, there are many factors that need to be considered

CLIENT MEMORANDUM SEC ADOPTS NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP AUDITING CLIENTS On March 18, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC ) issued a release and a companion order (the Exchange

CLIENT MEMORANDUM Sustainable Finance: Implications of Equator Principles 3.0 for Financiers and Developers March 5, 2014 AUTHORS William Thomas Annise Maguire The third iteration of the Equator Principles

The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys Comments on US Department of Commerce RFC: Domestic and International Issues Related to Privileged Communications between Patent Practitioners and their Clients

International Investigations: Issues to Consider When Conducting or Defending Against an FCPA Investigation Outside the United States Presentation to: Ninth Annual Pharmaceutical Regulatory and Compliance

Alert Memo NEW YORK JUNE 10, 2010 Manhattan District Attorney s Office Issues Guidelines Regarding the Prosecution of Businesses and Organizations The District Attorney of the County of New York (the DANY

CLIENT MEMORANDUM SEC ISSUES FINAL RULES FOR NEW CEO/CFO CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT As noted in our previous client memoranda, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act ) calls

presents Corporate Income Tax: Compiling and Maintaining Audit Files Strategies for Preparing an Effective Record for Federal and State Exams A Live 110-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1130 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. RICK

New York Court of Appeals Announces New Rules Governing Practice in New York by Attorneys Not Provisions Permit Temporary Practice by Non-New York Attorneys and Registration of Non-U.S. Lawyers as In-House

Knowhow briefs Privilege Executive summary: A party has an absolute right to withhold a privileged document from production to a third party. It is only necessary to claim privilege in respect of documents

Case 2:11-cv-01174-TS-PMW Document 257 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation;

Case 1:13-cv-01018-MAD-DJS Document 76 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAMES KARAM, Plaintiff, - v - Civ. No. 1:13-CV-1018 (MAD/RFT) COUNTY OF RENSSELAER,

CLIENT MEMORANDUM IN THE WAKE OF STORM SANDY, INSURANCE COMPANIES SHOULD ENSURE THAT THEIR BUSINESS CONTINUITY AND DISASTER RECOVERY PLANS COMPLY WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND BEST PRACTICES How do insurance

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY Guidelines for Outside Counsel New York University, NYU Langone Medical Center and Affiliates Purpose and Goals New York University s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, assisted

THE CORPORATE COUNSELOR NOVEMBER 2013 Third-Party Litigation Investing and Attorney-Client Privilege By David A. Prange Civil litigation is potentially expensive, and achieving lucrative outcomes is not

Alert Memo NOVEMBER 5, 2010 SEC Proposes Rules for Whistleblower Program On November 3, 2010, the SEC voted unanimously to propose rules governing a whistleblower program to reward individuals who provide

STEVEN J. HATFILL, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04cv807 (CMH/LO) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 242 F.R.D.

Number 1462 February 5, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Accountants and Auditors as SEC Whistleblowers Nearly every public company and financial industry firm subject to the enforcement

An Ounce of Prevention: Effective Use of the Attorney/Client Privilege 1) The Attorney Client Privilege: What is It? Communication of facts to attorney to obtain legal advice and Communication of legal

Friday 31st October, 2008. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective January 1, 2009. Amend Rules

ARTICLES The Appellate Mandate: What It Is and Why It Matters By Jennifer L. Swize Just the other day, a trial team handling post-appeal matters on remand wanted to know the significance of the mandate

Protecting Against the Inadvertent Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege When Providing Defense-Related Information to an Insurer Kirk A. Pasich March 2011. 1 Introduction Insurers often ask that their

The Attorney-Client Privilege: What Every In-House Lawyer Should Know Ninth Annual GC Roundtable and All Day MCLE January 13, 2012 Presented By James Huston and Erin Bosman, Morrison & Foerster LLP and

THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) AND DISCOVERY TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR ACCESSING AGENCY RECORDS AND THE BENEFITS OF LEVERAGING E- DISCOVERY TOOLS FOR FOIA The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and

FINRA Provides Guidance on the Obligation of Broker-Dealers to Conduct Reasonable Investigations in Regulation D Offerings SUMMARY FINRA has published a regulatory notice providing guidance to broker-dealers

INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, 2008 ANNUAL CONFERENCE, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR By: Marion J. Radson City Attorney City of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION East Bridge Lofts Property Owners ) Civil Action No. 2: 14-cv-2567-RMG Association, Inc.; Creekstone Builders,

November 2007 DRI For the Defense Inside Counsel: The Attorney-Client Privilege Within Law Firms By Mark J. Fucile Fucile & Reising LLP In recent years it has become increasingly common for a designated

PEOPIL The Pan-European Organisation of Personal Injury Lawyers www.peopil.com PEOPIL RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION «GREEN PAPER ON THE REVIEW OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 44/2001 ON JURISDICTION